Honor Killings in the United States From 1990 to 2021: Primary Victims and Corollary Victims

Abstract

Although honor killings often include multiple fatalities in the U.S., the situational circumstances of why these offenders target corollary victims remain unknown. We used open-source data from the U.S. Extremist Crime Database to qualitatively examine 66 primary and corollary victims of 26 honor killings in the U.S. between 1990 and December 2021. One third of the cases involved corollary victims, and half of all victims were corollary victims. Corollary victims were especially common when the primary victim was the offender’s (ex-)partner. These findings add to the growing body of knowledge that recognizes similarities between IPHs and honor killings.

Keywords

honor crimes corollary victims intimate partner homicide

Violence against women affects women in a wide range of cultural and geographical contexts (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2006). Importantly, violence against women comprises various forms of abusive behavior, ranging from verbal harassment to physical or sexual abuse (World Health Organization [WHO], 2012). In its most extreme form it results in femicide, the intentional murder of women. These femicides are usually committed by male offenders, typically an intimate partner, and involve ongoing family or domestic violence (WHO, 2012). Honor killings are one type of these domestic, intimate partner, and family violence homicides. Honor killings are those in which a victim is murdered because their real or perceived behaviors are believed to have reduced the family’s honor in some capacity (Araji & Carlson, 2001; Cooney, 2019).

Honor killings that are committed by an intimate partner share similarities with intimate partner homicides (IPHs). To be direct, the victim and offender can be current or former partners in both honor killings and IPHs. Both types of homicide often involve a documented history of prior intimate partner violence (IPV), and separation is a common motivating factor (Campbell et al., 2007; Hayes et al., 2018; Matias et al., 2020). It is also possible that the offenders of both IPHs, generally, and honor killings, specifically, target others beyond the primary victim(s). As argued by Smith et al. (2014), victims of IPHs are not limited to the offender’s intimate partner, and may include victims beyond the primary victim, such as children, other family members, or friends. We define these victims in the current study as “corollary victims,” relating to individuals who were injured or killed by the offender despite the absence of a clear direct motive, potentially as a result of (1) the relationship to the offender or victim, or (2) being in proximity.¹

Nevertheless, some scholars contend that IPHs and honor killings are distinctly different phenomena that must be considered separately (Cooney, 2019). In this vein, Hayes et al. (2018) found that honor killings in the United States (U.S.) included more fatalities compared to a selection of domestic violence homicides that occurred in close proximity to the honor killings. Potentially, offenders of honor killings target individuals that are close to the victim to make the victim “pay” for dishonoring the family, or offenders believe they assisted the primary victim and thus are also responsible for bringing shame to the offender’s family name (Hayes et al., 2018). While corollary victims have been considered in IPHs (Smith et al., 2014), few studies investigate their role during honor killings. This is a critical gap, and it remains unclear how honor killing offenders may target those close to the victim. Similarly, it is unknown if these offenders instead draw on community support for their actions. Yet, if similarities exist among corollary victims between honor killings and IPHs, then the phenomena may indeed overlap.

Knowing whether there are specific patterns of corollary victims in honor killings, and how this differs or overlaps with IPHs, is important in terms of how these crimes are defined, identified, and understood. Additionally, these insights have important societal relevance. Knowing to what extent and in what circumstances individuals close to primary victims are targeted contributes to our understanding of honor killings, and is pivotal for prevention and intervention efforts. Specifically, if family members, including children, are at risk of becoming injured or killed during honor killings, it would be crucial to extend prevention and intervention efforts to individuals close to the primary victim. To fill this gap, we used data from the U.S. Extremist Crime Database (ECDB), which relies on open-source documents and comprises the population of publicly known honor killings committed in the U.S. between January 1990 and December 31, 2021 (Incident N = 26). We analyzed which victims were targeted beyond the primary victims, and which individuals were present during the homicide but were not targeted. Further, we considered whether there was a prior history of domestic violence, as this may shape the presence or absence of corollary victims and illuminate the overlap—or absence thereof—between these forms of homicide.

Honor Crimes

Honor crimes are fatal or nonfatal acts of violence that are committed by one or more perpetrators, typically a man, to restore the honor of the family, which was violated by the victim’s actual or perceived misbehaviors that are believed to have caused shame to the family (Kulwicki, 2002). While estimates of global honor killings—the ultimate form of honor crimes—are inaccurate and likely underreport the actual number, it is known that they are much more frequent in the Middle East and South Asia compared to North America and Europe (Cooney, 2019). Although honor killings most often occur in Muslim-majority countries, they also occur among Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus (Cooney, 2019). While religion is sometimes used by offenders to justify the involvement in honor killings (Van Baak et al., 2018), religion by itself does not explain honor violence (Cooney, 2019).

Importantly, family honor typically revolves around female chastity, and women are often the primary victims of honor crimes (Cooney, 2019). Given the importance of familial reputation in honor cultures, women are expected to behave modestly and to refrain from engaging in behaviors that may threaten this reputation (Cooney, 2019). On the other hand, men are expected to be masculine and to react to threats to their reputation to uphold their family’s honor (Baker et al., 1999). Male authority is especially strong in the “honor belt” of countries that stretch from North-West Africa to South-East Asia (Cooney, 2019). Arab, Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern (e.g., India and Pakistan) collective cultures have been considered patriarchal societies in which a high premium is placed on family honor, and violence in response of violation of this honor is generally condoned (Baker et al., 1999; Baxi et al., 2006; Lowe et al., 2018). Prior studies within these countries indicate that women may violate norms of female chastity and “dishonor” their family in various ways, including losing their virginity before marriage, having an extramarital affair, acting autonomously by gaining education, leaving a husband, refusing an arranged marriage, or dressing non-traditionally (Doğan, 2016; İnce et al., 2009; Pope, 2012). In the context of the United States, where honor killings are substantially less prevalent but still occur, honor killings are mostly committed in response to the victim’s westernized behavior or the process of separation (Hayes et al., 2016). While male-on-male violence to regain lost status and to restore one’s “honor” has historically also been reported in the United States, specifically in the southern states (Grosjean, 2014; Thrasher & Handfield, 2018), the vast majority of victims of honor killings are women (Hayes et al., 2016).

According to Cooney (2019), honor crimes differ from domestic violence in several ways. First, honor crimes can be considered collective violence, as they are carried out by or on behalf of a group, usually the primary female victim’s family. Cooney (2019) also argues that honor crimes tend to be collaborative and committed by several perpetrators. In contrast to domestic violence, which can be considered individual violence that occurs spontaneously, honor crimes are often deliberately planned (Cooney, 2019). Further, both types differ in the target of the violence. While domestic violence homicides are most often committed against intimate partners, honor crimes are mostly perpetrated against daughters and sisters (Kulwicki, 2002). Cooney (2019) identified the “quintessential honor killing” as one in which a “father or brother kill[ed] a pregnant unmarried daughter or sister” (p. 5).

Yet, other scholars argue that honor crimes fall under the broader spectrum of domestic violence (Aujla & Gill, 2014; Reddy, 2014). According to Aujla and Gill (2014), honor killings are rooted in larger social structures of patriarchy that underlie all forms of violence against women. According to Baker et al. (1999), honor is a fundamental part of patriarchal systems and violence against women, but the components that underlie an honor system (e.g., control, shame) differ across cultural contexts. Bates (2021) argues that the type of honor crime that is solely committed against an intimate partner shares commonality with “mainstream” IPV, as they are both highly gendered, include jealousy and controlling behaviors, and multiple forms of abuse often co-exist. Similar to domestic violence homicides, all victims and offenders of honor killings in the U.S. have been found to be immediate or extended family members or current or former intimate partners (Hayes et al., 2018). In addition, separation is often a motivating factor in both IPHs and in honor killings that are committed against an intimate partner (Hayes et al., 2018). Yet, honor killings in the U.S. resulted in higher numbers of victims compared to a subset of domestic violence homicides (Hayes et al., 2018). Overall, this body of work suggests that while there might be some commonalities between honor killings and IPHs, it is also possible that differences between these homicides will emerge. There is a tension within the literature about the conceptualization of these types of femicides. Corollary victims may be one avenue to move the theoretical dial on our understanding of honor killings as they relate to IPHs.

Intimate Partner Homicide

Research in the U.S. has found that women are substantially more likely than men to become victims of IPH (Garcia et al., 2007), and the burden of IPV and IPH extends far beyond the intimate partners that are involved (Adhia et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2014). Prior research suggests that IPHs often result in the death of other victims beyond the offender’s partner (Adhia et al., 2019; Lyons et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2014). These victims, who are corollary victims, may include family members, neighbors, friends, acquaintances, partners, police officers, or bystanders (Smith et al., 2014). Although corollary victims represent approximately 20% of all IPH victims (Smith et al., 2014), few studies investigate them.

Children, in particular, are at risk of becoming victimized in IPHs (Smith et al., 2014). Adhia et al. (2019) claim as many as one in five homicides of children between ages 2 to 14 years in the U.S. may be related to IPV. Offenders may have different motivations for victimizing children in IPHs, including retaliation toward their partner, feelings of shame for not fulfilling gender role expectations, or the offender’s dependence on his family (Ewing, 1997; Websdale, 2010). Lyons et al. (2021) found that the offender’s history of suicidal behavior, prior rape of the victim, non-biological child of the offender living in the home, and job stressors increased the risk of child corollary victims in IPHs, while separation prior to the IPH decreased the odds of a child corollary victim. According to Lyons et al. (2021), the perpetrator may have killed only the partner out of revenge for the separation or as a way to obtain custody of the children, or this could be the result of situational circumstances, meaning that the children were more likely to flee if the offender did not live with them.

Corollary Victims: IPHs and Honor Killings

Importantly, Cooney (2019) defines honor crimes as “physical force by a family on one of its members for undermining the family’s moral status” (p. 5; emphasis added). According to this definition, offenders of honor killings only target the primary victim, consisting of the person to whom the honor-related motive of the honor killing is directed. Thus, this definition assumes these offenders do not kill or injure victims beyond the primary victim to whom there does not appear to be a direct honor-related motive (e.g., corollary victims). However, as noted, prior research has found U.S. honor killings often included multiple fatalities (Hayes et al., 2016) beyond the primary person the offender perceived brought shame to the family.

Our study will thus identify if corollary victims—consisting of individuals who were injured or killed by the offender despite the absence of a clear (honor-related) motive to target them—are present. We additionally analyze the relationship between the offender and corollary victims, and aim to understand their role during the honor killing. Another key research gap relates to what role these corollary victims played in the offender’s motivation, perceptions of the primary victim’s alleged misbehaviors, and/or system of honor. Offenders may target individuals that are close to the primary victim because they believe that by harming loved ones the primary victim will “pay” for dishonoring the family, or, in contrast, they may perceive these individuals as assisting the primary victim and thus responsible for shaming the offender’s family name (Hayes et al., 2018). It could also be possible that offenders of honor killings target corollary victims because they were acting as a guardian for the primary victim, or report the attack. By analyzing open-source data, we examine these important dimensions to shed insight on etiological overlap and differences between honor killings and IPHs.

Data and Methods

We used data from the open-source U.S. Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) that includes fatal crimes committed by political extremists in the U.S. (Chermak et al., 2012; Freilich et al., 2019). The ECDB also includes all known honor killings committed in the U.S. since 1990 until December 31, 2021 (Hayes et al., 2016). The identification and coding of incidents eligible for the ECDB—and by extension the subsection on honor killings—consists of a multistage process (Freilich et al., 2014). First, official sources, existing databases, watch-group reports, and media reports were used to identify cases that fit the inclusion criteria. Subsequently, a systematic search protocol that included over 35 unique web engines, archives, and databases was used to gather information using Boolean keywords (e.g., offender/victim name; Hayes et al., 2016). From there, open-source data was compiled into a Word document. The inclusion of multiple sources enhances the reliability and validity of the open-source data (Chermak et al., 2012). Incident-, offender-, victim-, and organizational-level variables were then coded in the ECDB.

Inclusion Criteria

Several criteria had to be met for an incident to be included as an honor killing in the database. First, a homicide must have been committed. Second, the incident must have occurred between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2021. Third, the victim must have been targeted by the offender because of their actual or perceived misbehaviors that could bring shame to the family. This information was used to identify the primary victim. Fourth, the offender committed the honor crime with the motive of protecting or regaining the (perceived) honor of the perpetrator, family, or community. Fifth, the offender believed the death of the victim would accomplish a social goal, such as revenge or a warning. In total, we identified 26 incidents that met our inclusion criteria.²

Analytic Plan

The 26 honor killings that satisfied our inclusion criteria were systematically coded (Maxwell, 2005) to identify the victim-offender relationship and the offender’s motivation in targeting that victim. We carefully reviewed each document related to the honor killing to highlight relevant statements. We used thematic analysis to code information related to four categories: (1) the primary victim(s), (2) corollary victim(s), (3) individuals who were present but not killed or injured, and (4) the history of domestic violence. No prior coding scheme was established since we aimed to examine each of these situational characteristics of the honor killings. This information was extracted from direct statements made by the offender and indirect statements made by reliable sources close to the investigation or the offender (e.g., police, family). For the purpose of reliability, we applied a ranking of sources by degree of reliability.³ Within these four categories, we then identified specific themes through an open-coding process, and gathered all relevant coded data extracts within the identified themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Maxwell, 2005). Below, we will first present a descriptive overview, followed by an extensive overview of the primary and corollary victims, individuals who were present but not killed or injured, and the history of domestic violence. We use direct quotes to illustrate and contextualize the results to help better understand if and how honor killings differ from IPHs as it relates to corollary victims.

Results

In total, there were 26 homicides committed by 32 offenders. While the majority of cases (n = 22) had one offender, two cases had three offenders, and two cases had two offenders. In one case that involved three perpetrators, the primary offender killed his ex-girlfriend’s father and sister, and injured her mother, with the help of two friends. In the other case that involved three perpetrators, the offender murdered his daughter’s best friend and his son-in-law together with his son and wife. In one of the cases involving two offenders, two cousins murdered another cousin. In the other case, an uncle killed his niece’s husband together with his nephew. For almost all cases, there was a prior relationship between the victim and offender. Overall, 84.62% of the incidents involved only one offender, which suggests these incidents are generally not collaborative efforts.⁴

Victim-Offender Relationship

Overall, we identified 66 victims across 26 honor killings, of which a total of 56 victims (84.62%) died and 10 victims were injured.⁵ This number departs from what was expected based on prior research that emphasized typically only one family member is targeted during honor killings (see Cooney, 2019). The vast majority of victims were women or girls (78.69%).⁶ Most victims consisted of immediate family members, including daughters (n = 15), (estranged) wives (n = 13), and sons (n = 4). Victims who were extended family members, such as nieces (n = 4) and sisters-in-law (n = 3) were also common. Among lethal victims, the offender’s daughter was the most frequent victim (n = 13), followed closely by the offender’s current or estranged wife (n = 11). Among the 10 victims who were not fatally injured, the offender’s daughter (n = 2), the offender’s current or estranged wife (n = 2), and bystanders (n = 2) were the most frequent non-lethal victims.

While not the norm, in two cases, there was no substantial prior relationship between the offender and (some of) the victims. In one honor killing, the offender “told police he killed the Oregon man because he believed he had impregnated his 13-year-old relative and wanted to protect his family’s honor” and “lured [the victim] to a meeting by pretending to be interested in buying his car” (Miller, 2017). After the murder, DNA tests showed that the targeted victim was not responsible for his relative’s pregnancy. This is a key example of how offenders’ perceptions are critical in the commission of honor killings. In another case, the offender killed his wife and two daughters, because he thought his wife was cheating on him with his brother. The offender then went to his brother’s apartment, approached his brother’s friend and “confronted this victim with the belief [offender’s] brother was cheating with [offender’s wife],” after which the victim “told [offender] he was crazy and [offender] shot him numerous times with a handgun.” (AZ Family, 2019). When the offender returned after getting a rifle from his car, he “saw several friends of the family trying to help the male victim. He considered these people co-conspirators with his wife and he shot at them with the rifle” (AZ Family, 2019). The two bystanders, with whom no substantial prior relationship existed, were injured but survived. This latter case was the only case in which bystanders, who do not appear to have been (well) known to the offender, were targeted. While strangers have also been reported as corollary victims during IPHs, they are not common (Smith et al., 2014). This suggests there are similarities in the absence of strangers in both IPHs and honor killings.

In 14 cases (53.84%), the honor killing resulted in a single death. The most frequent victims in these cases were the offender’s (estranged) wife (n = 5) or their daughter (n = 2). In the remaining 12 of the 26 cases (41.16%) there were multiple lethal victims, ranging from two to eight lethal victims. The majority of cases where there were multiple deaths involved two lethal victims (n = 5; 41.66%). Therefore, the cases were similarly split between single fatalities and multiple fatalities. While most IPHs include a single death, multiple fatalities up to seven victims have also been reported (Smith et al., 2014) Two of the multiple death-cases involved murder-suicides. While the offenders were among the lethal victims, we only included them as offenders for the purposes of this study, and excluded them as victims.

Primary Victims

Relying on material in the open-sources, we identified the primary victim(s) as the person to whom the honor-related motive of the honor killing was specifically directed. Statements were often made directly about the primary victim. Corollary victims were seen as the victims that were targeted by the offender (i.e., killed or injured) beyond the primary victims to whom there did not appear to be a direct honor-related motive. An overview of the primary and corollary victims and the offender’s motive can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of Offender-Victim Relationships and Types of Victims.

Year	Nationality	Total victims	Relationship victim-offender	Motive	Primary victims	Corollary victims	Others present
2009	Pakistan	1	Wife	Violated honor by filing for divorce	1. Wife (lethal)	—	—
2008	Pakistan	1	Daughter	Violated honor by seeking divorce from arranged husband	1. Daughter (lethal)	—	Wife was at home, asleep
2011	Iraq	1	Stepdaughter	Left home. Not following Islam	1. Stepdaughter (lethal)	—	—
1999	Palestine	1	Cousin	Shunned her Muslim culture. Became too independent	1. Cousin (lethal)	—	—
2012	Iraq	1	Wife	Contemplated a divorce. Daughter resisted arranged marriage	1. Wife (lethal)	—	Daughter was home and heard her mother squeal followed by sound of breaking glass
2011	Pakistan	1	Wife	Prepared the wrong meal and disrespected him	1. Wife (lethal)	—	—
2017	Peru	1	Wife	Infidelity	1. Wife (lethal)	—	Children were home. Son discovered victim’s body. Daughter came out of the home screaming.
2020	Iraq	1	Wife	Too Westernized	1. Wife (lethal)	—	—
2015	Mexico	1	Stranger	Believed victim had impregnated 13-year old relative	1. Stranger (lethal)	—	—
2019	Egypt	1	Daughter	Went against tradition by rekindling with boyfriend. Became more Westernized	1. Daughter (lethal)	—	—
2019	India	1	Daughter-in-law	Infidelity, threatened to leave the family, disrespected the offender	1. Daughter-in-law (lethal)	—	—
1996	Pakistan	1	Niece’s husband	Niece resisted arranged marriage, secretly married another man	1. Niece’s husband (lethal)2. Niece (not killed/injured)3. Niece’s arranged husband (not killed/injured)	—	—
2009	Iraq	2	DaughterDaughter’s boyfriends’s mother	Too Westernized	1. Daughter (lethal)	1. Daughter’s boyfriend mother (injured)	—
2008	Egypt	2	DaughterDaughter	Too Westernized	1. Daughter (lethal)2. Daughter (lethal)	—	—
2019	USA	2	SisterSister’s unborn child	Pregnancy would embarrass the family	1. Sister (lethal)	1. Sister’s unborn child (lethal)	—
2012	Jordan	2	Daughter’s best friendSon-in-law	Blamed them for daughter defying his rules and marrying Christian man	1. Daughter’s best friend (lethal)2. Son-in-law (lethal)3. Daughter (not killed/injured)	—	—
2004	Turkey	3	WifeDaughterDaughter	Wife and daughter molested by offender’s brother. Daughter “sullied” by gynecological exam	1. Wife (lethal)2. Daughter (injured)3. Daughter (injured)	—	Two sons were present in the home, tried to help the wounded
2007	Bangladesh	3	Ex-partner’s fatherEx-partner’s sisterEx-partner’s mother	Disapproved offender’s relationship with daughter because of religion	1. Ex-partner’s father (lethal)2. Ex-partner’s sister (lethal)3. Ex-partner’s mother (injured)	—	All those who were present were killed or injured
2018	USA	3	GirlfriendDaughterSon	Tension over offender’s efforts to convert the family to Islam	1. Girlfriend (lethal)	1. Daughter (lethal)2. Son (injured)	All those who were present were killed or injured
1999	Pakistan	4	WifeFather-in-lawSister-in-lawNiece	Feared that he would look bad in the Islamic faith if his wife divorced him	1. Wife (lethal)	1. Father-in-law (lethal)2. Sister-in-law (lethal)3. Niece (lethal)	All those who were present were killed
2009	Iran	4	DaughterMother-in-lawWifeOffender (murder-suicide)	Violated honor by wanting divorce	1. Wife (injured)	1. Daughter (lethal)2. Mother-in-law (lethal)	All those who were present were killed or injured
2002	Guyana	5	WifeUnborn childUnborn childMother-in-lawSister-in-law	Refused to convert to Islam	1. Wife (lethal)	1. Unborn child (lethal)2. Unborn child (lethal)3. Mother-in-law (lethal)4. Sister-in-law (lethal)	Offender’s two nephews were asleep and discovered the bodies when they woke up
2006	Somali	5	DaughterDaughterDaughterSonWife	Believed estranged wife was dating another man	1. Wife (injured)	1. Son (lethal)2. Daughter (lethal)3. Daughter (lethal)4. Daughter (lethal)	All those who were present were killed or injured
2019	USA	6	WifeDaughterDaughterBrother’s friendBystanderBystander	Believed wife had an affair with his brother	1. Wife (lethal)	1. Daughter (lethal)2. Daughter (lethal)3. Brother’s friend (lethal)4. Bystander (injured)5. Bystander (injured)	Daughter was present and hid under the bed. Two bystanders were shot at while helping the victim
2011	Iran	7	WifeDaughterSonSister-in-lawBrother-in-lawNieceOffender (murder-suicide)	Wife left. Daughter was dating a non-Muslim	1. Wife (lethal)2. Daughter (lethal)	1. Son (lethal)2. Sister-in-law (lethal)3. Brother-in-law (lethal)4. Niece (lethal)	All those who were present were killed
2010	USA	8	WifeUnborn childSonNieceNieceNiece’s unborn childMotherNephew	Felt disrespected they would not convert to his religion	1. Wife (lethal)	1. Unborn child (lethal)2. Son (lethal)3. Niece (lethal)4. Niece (lethal)5. Niece’s unborn child (lethal)6. Mother (lethal)7. Nephew (injured)	Offender’s niece and a boarder were present in the home. Offender attempted to shoot the boarder, but gun didn’t fire. Niece was shot at while she fled carrying her baby brother, but bullet missed

We identified a total of 33 primary—lethal or injured—victims.⁷ In over half of the honor killings (n = 14, 53.84%) the primary victim—who may or may not have been fatally injured—was the offender’s (estranged) partner. In five of these cases, the offender’s partner was the only victim, and the offender did not kill or injure anyone else. In three of these five cases, the honor killing occurred in the home while no one else was present. As a result of this unique situational dynamic, the offender could not target anyone else at the moment the homicide was committed. These five cases demonstrate clear overlaps with IPH. Yet, in two cases, the offender’s children were present in the home, but were not targeted. We elaborate on cases in which individuals were present, but not killed or injured, below. The most common honor-related motive when the primary target was the partner wanting a divorce or separation from the offender (n = 4). Many of the other motives centered on what could be considered controlling behaviors (e.g., suspicions of infidelity, the partner’s refusal to convert to the offender’s religion), again reinforcing the overlap between IPHs and honor killings.

In the two remaining cases, the honor-related motive was directed to both the wife and the offender’s daughter(s). This suggests offenders of honor killings can and do target corollary victims. In one case, the offender “claimed he attacked his wife and daughters after learning that his brother had molested his wife and his 22-year-old-daughter (. . .) [The offender], 41, said he attacked his 4-year-old daughter because she had been “sullied” by a gynecological exam.” (Solomonia, 2004). In this case, the offender blamed both his wife and his daughters for “taking” his family honor. In the other case, the offender killed everyone who was present in the family home: his wife, daughter, son, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, and his niece. Although the offender immediately committed suicide, it was suspected the offender killed them because his daughter was dating a non-Muslim and his wife had left him. In this case, both his daughter and wife appear to be primary victims, as the offender perceived them as violating his honor by engaging in these “misbehaviors.”

In seven cases, the primary victim was the offender’s daughter (26.92%). Within these cases, the honor-related motive toward the offender’s daughter included the victim becoming too Westernized or Americanized (n = 3), wanting to divorce her arranged husband (n = 1), dating or marrying a non-Muslim man (n = 2), and being molested (n = 1).

In the remaining cases, the primary victims often consisted of other family members, such as the offender’s stepdaughter (n = 1), cousin (n = 1), daughter-in-law (n = 1), and the offender’s ex-girlfriend’s parents and sister (n = 1). There were several cases in which there were multiple primary victims. This reinforces the complexity of these cases and highlights that it is possible that offenders of honor killings do not target only one victim.

Primary Victim Not Killed

Importantly, there were six cases (23.08%) in which one or more primary victim(s) were not killed. This translates to almost one in four of the cases. In two of these cases, the offender wanted to kill the primary victim, but due to circumstances did not. For instance, an uncle and his nephew killed his niece’s husband. The niece had secretly married her husband even though her father had promised her to another man in Pakistan. The niece confided to her potential arranged husband, and he repudiated the arranged marriage. When her father (the offender’s brother) became enraged, the offender’s niece, her arranged husband, and her secret husband fled to the U.S. Her father plotted to kill all three to restore the family’s honor and paid the offender to find them and kill them (Goldberg & Greene, 2021). While the primary victims were the offender’s niece, her secret husband, and the arranged husband, the offender only managed to kill the niece’s secret husband. After the niece’s husband was murdered, the offender and his nephew fled the country, and were arrested before they were able to kill the two other primary victims. While the family honor in this case is violated by “misbehaviors” of all three primary victims, and is typically restored by physical force by a family on one of its members (i.e., in this case the niece, Cooney, 2019), the offender only partially succeeded in carrying out what he perceived to be the restoration of honor.

In another case, the offender killed his daughter’s best friend and his son-in-law because he blamed both of them for his daughter defying his rules and marrying a Christian man. Yet, the offender had a hit list that included his daughter and the family members of his son-in-law but was arrested before he was able to complete this list. Here, there were three primary victims that the offender held responsible for the violation of his honor: his daughter, her best friend, and his son-in-law. He was only successful in fatally injuring some of whom he perceived as the primary victim. Together, these two cases emphasize the situational and fluid nature of these cases. Had the offender had more time or circumstances unfolded differently, he may have been able to target all primary victims. It also reinforces that, among the American population of honor killings, there is likely more than the primary victim that needs to be considered. This emphasizes that multiple primary victims can be present in honor killings.

In four cases, the primary victim was injured but not killed by the offender. In three cases, the injuries suffered by the victims were severe and/or the offender was interrupted while assaulting the victim. There is a continuum of harm when it comes to victimization, and fatalities are only one indicator. In a case where the offender targeted his ex-girlfriend’s father, mother, and sister, the ex-girlfriend’s mother was bludgeoned but survived, because the offender and his accomplices escaped after spotting a neighbor (Jha, 2013). In another case, the offender believed his estranged wife was dating another man. According to the police, they had been fighting, and the offender “admitted to raping his estranged wife, then hitting her over the head with a blunt object” (Flack, 2006). When the victim regained consciousness, she fled to a bedroom and braced the door shut so the offender could not get in. The offender then went to the children’s rooms and cut their throats. His three daughters and one son—who were corollary victims—died in the attack, while his wife—the primary victim—survived. In these cases, the survival of the primary victim seems to be coincidental and did not seem to be anticipated by the offender.

This stands in contrast to the case in which the offender returned home with a shotgun after an argument with his wife—the primary victim—about her plans to move, because she wanted a divorce. The offender shot his wife, his daughter, his mother-in-law, and then himself. While all other victims were shot in the head, the wife was shot in the abdomen and survived the attack, which led medical personnel to imply that the offender wanted his wife to live (Roslyn Heights NY, 2019). Contrary to the other cases, in which the primary victim survived due to how the event unfolded, this case implies that the offender may have wanted to make the primary victim suffer by letting her live while targeting her family members.

Corollary Victims

We identified corollary victims in nine honor killings (34.61%). In total, 33 corollary victims were identified. This means that while only a third of the cases involved corollary victims, exactly half of all lethal and injured victims were corollary victims. This is a salient finding, suggesting that the burden of these crimes is likely to extend far beyond the killing of a primary victim in the United States. The vast majority of the corollary victims died in the attack (n = 28), while a smaller portion survived (n = 5). Corollary victims were often the offender’s daughter (n = 7), son (n = 4), niece (n = 4), or sister-in-law (n = 3). An overview of the corollary victims can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Overview Corollary Victims.

All corollary victims (n = 33)		Lethal corollary victims (n = 28)		Injured corollary victims (n = 5)
Relationship	Count	Relationship	Count	Relationship	Count
DaughterSonNieceSister-in-lawMother-in-lawOffender’s unborn childBystandersFather-in-lawBrother’s friendBrother-in-lawNiece’s unborn childMotherDaughter’s boyfriend’s motherNephewSister’s unborn child	744322211111111	DaughterNieceSonSister-in-lawOffender’s unborn childMother-in-lawFather-in-lawBrother-in-lawBrother’s friendMotherSister’s unborn childNiece’s unborn child	743332111111	BystanderSonNephewDaughter’s boyfriend’s mother	2111

In six out of nine cases that involved corollary victims, all individuals who were present at home during the honor killing were targeted by the offender. Similar to what has been reported regarding IPHs, these victims may have had the misfortune of being present at the time of the incident (Smith et al., 2014). Alternatively, the offender may have considered—all or some of—these individuals as an extension of the primary victim who “violated” the offender’s honor, and may have targeted them due to their close family ties with, or support for, the primary victim. Our data did not allow us to disentangle this difference. But, offenders of honor killings do not always target everyone who is present in the home, and occasionally use a selective approach.

Corollary victims were almost exclusively present in cases in which the offender’s (estranged) partner was the primary victim. In eight cases involving corollary victims, the offender’s partner was the primary victim. This means that out of the 14 honor killings that involve the offender’s partner as primary victims, 57.14% resulted in the death or injury of corollary victims. Similar to what has been found in IPHs (Smith et al., 2014), corollary victims of honor killings often consisted of children (n = 11), which can be seen as the ultimate form of power and control (Jaffe & Juodis, 2006; Meyer & Post, 2013). This reinforces the similarities between these two types of femicide.

Although the offender’s daughter was a common primary victim, corollary victims were rarely reported in these cases. The only exception to this was a case in which the offender struck his daughter with his car in a parking lot, but also hit and injured his daughter’s mother-in-law who was standing next to her. Therefore, there is something unique when the honor killing targets a current or former intimate partner compared to when a child is the primary victim as it relates to the presence of corollary victims.

Present and Not Killed or Injured

In seven cases (26.92%), there were family members or others present in the home during the honor killing who were not targeted by the offender and were left unharmed. It seems like the offender did not kill or injure individuals who were present because (1) the offender aimed to do so but did not succeed or (2) the offender did not blame specific individuals or hold them responsible for the primary victim’s “misbehaviors” that violated his honor.

In three of the seven cases, the offender killed or injured corollary victims, but spared the lives of others who were also present. In one case, this seems to be coincidental: the offender tried to shoot the two survivors but failed. Yet, in the two other cases this appears to be more purposeful. In one case, the offender killed his girlfriend and two of his daughters, before shooting his brother’s friend to death and injuring two bystanders, because he believed his girlfriend had an affair with his brother. All three of his daughters were present in the house, but the offender purposefully decided to let only his youngest daughter live. Importantly, “[the offender] told officers that he thought his wife was cheating on him and that God told him to kill her, the girls and [his brother’s friend]. He said his two daughters reminded him of his wife whom he considered wicked in the eyes of God. He let his 3-year-old daughter live because she reminded him of himself” (J. Smith & Kenton, 2019).⁸ In this case, the offender’s honor-related motive was directed toward his partner, because he believed she violated his honor by cheating on him. While the offender did not have an honor-related motive toward his two daughters, the offender’s statement implies that he perceived them as an extension of their mother, indirectly holding them—but not his youngest daughter—responsible for the primary victim’s perceived misbehavior. As the offender first killed his girlfriend and then his two daughters, it is unlikely that he targeted the corollary victims to make the primary victim “pay” for dishonoring the family.

In the other case, the offender killed his wife—the primary victim—, their two unborn children, his mother-in-law and his sister-in-law in their family home, because his wife would not convert to Islam. The two sons of his sister-in-law, his nephews, who were aged 2 and 5 years, were also at home but were not targeted. The two young boys discovered the bodies when they woke up in the morning. In this case, the offender did not simply target everyone present in the home, but spared the lives of his two nephews. According to court documents, the police discovered that the offender and his wife had been having conflict concerning religious beliefs and how their two unborn children should be raised. Yet, “that conflict extended to [offender], [mother-in-law] and [sister-in-law] as well who seemed to be putting pressure on their daughter and sister to leave [offender]” (State of New Jersey v. Hassan, 2008). A few days before the incident, the offender complained to his mother that “his mother-in-law and sister-in-law were setting his wife against him” (Lucas, 2002). Although the honor-related motive was directed toward the offender’s wife as a result of religious differences, the offender seems to have also extended blame to his in-laws for this perceived misbehavior, as they were close and supportive toward the primary victim. This may have not been the case for his young nephews. The two latter cases imply that the offender does not always elicit to kill or injure everyone who is present during the honor killing, but may target other individuals if he perceives them as allies of the primary victim that violated his honor.

In four of these seven cases, the offender only targeted the primary victim(s) and did not target corollary victims, despite being present. In one case, the offender killed his wife and critically injured his daughters, who were the three primary victims, but did not target their “two sons, ages 19 and 16, [who] were at home at the time of the dispute and tried to help the wounded” (The Buffalo News, 2004). The offender, who stated he targeted his wife and oldest daughter because he suspected they were molested by his brother, and his youngest daughter because she had been “sullied” by a gynecological exam (Solomonia, 2004), did not have any honor-relative motive toward his sons.

Another offender learned his wife had been cheating on him, and confronted her. After she insulted him, he became enraged about her insults and infidelity, took two knives out of the kitchen, and stabbed her to death (Farberov, 2017). Both his children were at home during the attack: their daughter came out of the house screaming, and their son found his mother’s body (Farberov, 2017). Similar to the prior case, the offender did not appear to hold his children responsible for the perceived infidelity and insults their mother engaged in. These cases directly contrast with those where the offender targeted children.

In another case, the offender killed his daughter, because she wanted to divorce her arranged husband. His wife, who was asleep in the home, awoke to screams, became afraid, and left the house to call the police. The fact that the daughter wanted out of the marriage caused a great deal of friction between the offender and the victim (CNN, 2008), but there are no indications the offender blamed his wife for this.

The remaining case stands out. The offender killed his wife in their home, by striking her with a heavy object, because she planned a divorce, and his daughter resisted an arranged marriage. The daughter, who was also present in the home, heard her mother squeal and the sound of breaking glass, and discovered her mother on the floor minutes later (Haaretz, 2012). While his daughter refused to comply with the arranged marriage, the offender did not target her, despite having the opportunity to do so. Potentially, though it cannot be certain, the offender not only considered his wife’s desire to divorce as a violation of his honor, but also held her responsible for their daughter’s refusal to comply with the arranged marriage.

History of Domestic Violence

Finally, we considered how many of the honor killings had a history of domestic violence to further disentangle the presence or absence of overlaps between these types of femicide. Out of the 26 cases, in 15 cases (57.69%) there was a documented history of physical abuse or controlling behaviors in the open sources. In 10 of these cases, the abuse, threats or controlling behaviors were directed toward the offender’s partner. In some of these cases, there was a long history of IPV with prior criminal justice involvement. For example, in an honor killing in which the offender killed his wife because she became too Westernized, the victim had made several IPV reports in the years leading up to the honor killing (Quinlan, 2021). Further, “[the victim] filed a declaration in the Spokane County Superior Court claiming her then-husband had attacked her several times and choked her. She said he sent photos of her without her head covering to her family in Iraq to anger them. He also threatened to send their children to Iraq, where he said his family would kill her if she tried to get the children back, according to court documents” (Quinlan, 2021). In another, the police had been called to the offender and his partner’s home five times within the year of the honor killing for, among other reasons, violation of a protection order, and neighbors mentioned a prior incident in which the offender’s partner was taken away by an ambulance (Ostapiuk, 2019). These cases are exemplars of the overlap between honor killings, IPV, and IPHs.

In the remaining five cases, the abusive behaviors were directed toward the offender’s daughter (n = 3), stepdaughter (n = 1), and his daughter, her husband and her best friend (n = 1). In the latter case, in which the offender killed his daughter’s best friend, her husband, and planned to kill his daughter, the offender and his family stalked and harassed all three of them, after his daughter left the house and married a Christian man (Kriel, 2015). In a case where the offender killed his two daughters for acting too Western, the offender had previously made many threats against them, and the victims had confided to their friends that they were physically abused by their father (Eiserer et al., 2008). Overall, these findings indicate that physical abuse, threats, or controlling behaviors related to the victim’s “misbehavior” precede the honor killing in over half of the incidents. It is also likely an under-estimate as we relied on the documentation of these behaviors in open sources, and domestic violence is known to be severely underreported (Ellsberg et al., 2001). Nevertheless, it emphasizes the connection between honor killings and IPV.

Discussion

Using open-source data of 26 honor killings that occurred between 1990 and December 2021 in the U.S., we found that the most common victims were daughters killed by their father, followed closely by intimate partners. This aligns with prior studies that have found that relatives, in particular daughters, are most at risk of becoming victims of honor crimes (Cooney, 2019; Hayes et al., 2016; Kulczycki & Windle, 2011). Yet, if we look at the honor-related motive of the offender, in over half of all cases the offender’s partner was the primary victim. In total, there were 13 daughters killed, but in 53.85% of incidents the daughter was targeted as a corollary victim, and the offender’s partner was the primary victim. Thus, in the U.S., honor killings were most often committed because of a perceived misbehavior by the offender’s current or former partner that violated the offender’s honor—not necessarily because of the daughter’s perceived misbehaviors. This is an important distinction that open-source documents illuminated. Discussed below, honor killings in which the primary victim is the offender’s partner are likely to involve corollary victims, inclusive of their children.

We identified a total of 66 victims, consisting of 56 lethal victims and 10 injured victims, across 26 honor killings. Within this study, this translates to an average of almost 2.5 victims per honor killing. According to Cooney (2019), honor crimes consist of “physical force by a family on one of its members for undermining the family’s moral status” (p. 5; emphasis added). Based on this definition, it would be expected that the honor killing results in a primary victim, but not in corollary victims to whom the offender does not appear to have an honor-related motive. However, our sample of honor killings in the U.S. frequently include multiple fatalities, with many fatalities consisting of victims that were not directly responsible for the primary victim’s “misbehavior” that violated the offender’s honor. Among the offenders who were convicted (e.g., some cases were still active or the offender had committed suicide), the sentences ranged from 20 years imprisonment to sentences of life in prison without parole and the death penalty. The sentences were more severe in cases in which corollary victims were targeted, as this often resulted in several counts of (attempted) murder or aggravated assault.

Corollary victims were most frequently targeted in cases in which the offender’s primary victim was his (estranged) partner. Contrary to Lyons et al. (2021), who found that separation decreased the odds of a child becoming a corollary victim, we found that the motive in cases with corollary victims was often related to the process of separation, divorce, or suspicions of infidelity. In more than half of the cases that involve the offender’s partner as the primary victim, persons who were present were killed or injured. Similar to findings from the IPH literature (Smith et al., 2014), corollary victims of honor killings were most often the offender’s children. Offenders may perceive separation or divorce as an immediate threat to their control, which may lead to the offender’s increased use of control and aggression (Campbell et al., 2007). In addition to the honor “violation” that motivates the honor killing, the victim’s process of separation may trigger additional feelings of jealousy or rage in the offender that may be extended to the children. The offender may kill his children during an honor killing because he considers them as an extension of his partner (Liem & Reichelmann, 2014; Websdale, 2010; Wilson et al., 1995). These findings indicate that there are important similarities between IPHs and honor killings in which the offender’s partner is targeted. The characteristics of these homicides often overlap: Victim/offender relationship, homicide of children, process of separation, and a prior history of IPV.

While there were six honor killings in which all those who were present in the home were killed or injured, there were also seven honor killings in which the offender did not target everyone who was present, suggesting corollary victims are not solely the result of situational circumstances. In one case, the offender tried to injure or kill everyone but did not succeed. Yet, in three cases, the offender only targeted the primary victims(s), although other individuals were present. In these three cases, the offender targeted corollary victims that were supportive to the primary victim but spared the lives of other family members if the honor-relative motive did not extend to these individuals. These findings imply that the offender does not elicit to kill or injure every person who is present during the event, but in some cases only targets individuals perceived as allies of the primary victim. Intriguingly, this suggests a distinction between honor killings and IPHs. Despite the high number of corollary victims in this study, we found not all honor killings result in overkill. Instead, the offender may refrain from targeting others if he does not perceive them as carrying blame or responsibility for the primary victim’s “misbehavior.”

We additionally found that in over half of all cases there was a prior history of abuse by the offender toward the primary victim, especially when the offender’s partner was the primary victim. Again, this highlights the similarity between honor killings and IPHs in the U.S., as prior history of IPV is one of the most salient risk factors of IPH (Campbell et al., 2007; Matias et al., 2020). As there is often a prior history of IPV and separation is a common honor-related motive in honor killings, it is important to be aware of the increased risk if victims plan or start a process of separation. Further, since there are corollary victims in cases in which the primary victim of the honor killing is the current or former partner, prevention and intervention efforts should not only focus on protecting the partner, but also her close relatives, and particularly children, that are at increased risk of injury or death. Thus, safety and prevention plans must extend beyond the primary victim.

This study has several limitations. First, since we relied on open sources, information was filtered by media outlets, and some details related to the situational aspects of the honor crimes may have been unknown or not reported by the media. Additionally, our estimates surrounding prior abuse are likely conservative given these reports were also filtered through media outlets. Second, while we conducted an exhaustive effort to identify all honor crimes in the U.S. since 1990, the media or courts may have not identified all honor killings. Further, these findings should be interpreted within the specific country-context of the U.S. They are not generalizable to honor killings that occur in other countries, and the rules of family honor and the way these rules are enacted differ across countries, cultures, and families (Cooney, 2019). Future research would therefore benefit from including the role of corollary victims in honor killings in different country contexts outside of the United States. Finally, while we explored the role of corollary victims and prior history of abuse in honor killings, and how this relates to IPH, the qualitative and exploratory nature of these specific aspects of honor killings in this paper necessitates caution in generalizing these findings.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicate that there are often corollary victims in U.S.-based honor killings, which counters the assumption that offenders solely target the primary victim that they hold responsible for behaviors that violate their honor. This is a fundamental shift in our understanding of honor killings and recognizes that prevention efforts cannot only be for the primary victim, particularly when the primary victim is the offender’s current or former intimate partner. Instead, family members—and especially children—of the primary victim are at risk of becoming injured or killing during the honor killing. Yet, the offender may refrain from targeting corollary victims if the individuals are not perceived as responsible for, or an extension of, the primary victim’s behavior. Corollary victims are especially likely during honor killings if the offender’s partner is the primary victim, suggesting that the offender’s honor is closely linked to power and control and reinforcing the overlap between honor killings and IPHs. In addition, a prior history of abuse is prevalent in honor killings, especially toward the offender’s partner. Thus, there is a nexus between honor crimes, especially when the offender’s partner is the primary victim, and IPHs. This knowledge can leverage what we know about IPHs to better assist potential victims of honor killings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Carlijn van Baak

Notes

Author Biographies

Carlijn van Baak (M.A., LL.M.) is a PhD candidate at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) and the University of Amsterdam. Her research focuses on interpersonal violence, with a specific focus on bystander behavior and gender. Prior work has appeared in Violence Against Women, Deviant Behavior, and Violence and Victims.

Brittany E. Hayes (Ph.D., John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. Her research centers on victimization as well as how the broader social context influences individuals’ perceptions and behaviors. Her work has been published in the American Sociological Review, Justice Quarterly, and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

Joshua D. Freilich is a Professor of Criminal Justice at John Jay College and a lead investigator for the National Counterterrorism, Innovation, Teaching and Education Center (NCITE), a DHS Center of Excellence. Freilich’s research has been funded by DHS and NIJ and focuses on the causes of and responses to bias crimes, terrorism, cyber-terrorism, and school shootings; open source research methods; and criminology theory, especially situational crime prevention.

Steven M. Chermak is a Professor of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Dr. Chermak’s research on rare events focuses on activities in the area of terrorism, ideologically-motivated cybercrimes, school shootings, and mass shootings. Recent research projects have focused on comparing the radicalization of violent and non-violent extremists, as well as identifying how extremists are similar and different from other violent offenders and school shooters.

References

Adhia

Austin

S. B.

Fitzmaurice

G. M.

Hemenway

(2019). The role of intimate partner violence in homicides of children aged 2–14 years. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(1), 38–46.

Araji

S. K.

Carlson

(2001). Family violence including crimes of honor in Jordan: Correlates and perceptions of seriousness. Violence Against Women, 7(5), 586–621.

Aujla

Gill

A. K.

(2014). Conceptualizing ‘honour’ killings in Canada: An extreme form of domestic violence? International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9(1).

AZ Family . (2019, April 11). Phoenix man accused of killing wife, daughters says ‘God told him to shoot’. Author. https://www.azfamily.com/news/phoenix-man-accused-of-killing-wife-daughters-says-god-told-him-to-shoot/article_3b82bff4-5cd7-11e9-9f1c-1b9ff7e5c229.html

Baker

N. V.

Gregware

P. R.

Cassidy

M. A.

(1999). Family killing fields: Honor rationales in the murder of women. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 164–184.

Bates

(2021). Honor-based abuse in England and Wales: Who does what to whom?. Violence Against Women, 27(10), 1774–1795.

Baxi

Rai

S. M.

Ali

S. S.

(2006). Legacies of common law: ‘Crimes of honour’ in India and Pakistan.” Third World Quarterly 27(7), 1239–1253.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

The Buffalo News. (2004, April 18). Around the state. Author. https://buffalonews.com/news/around-the-state/article_460b9c02-19ca-57d2-b643-1c2a30e3821e.html

10.

Campbell

J. C.

Glass

Sharps

P. W.

Laughon

Bloom

(2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 246–269.

11.

Chermak

S. M.

Freilich

J. D.

Parkin

W. S.

Lynch

J. P.

(2012). American terrorism and extremist crime data sources and selectivity bias: An investigation focusing on homicide events committed by far-right extremists. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(1), 191–218.

12.

CNN . (2008, July 9). Dad charged with murdering reluctant bride. Author. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/08/honor.killing/

13.

Cooney

(2019). Execution by family: A theory of honor violence. Routledge.

14.

Doğan

(2016). The dynamics of honor killings and the perpetrators’ experiences. Homicide Studies, 20(1), 53–79.

15.

Eiserer

Farwell

Goldstein

(2008, January 10). For years, friends say, slain sisters lived with their father’s threats of violence and abuse. Dallas News. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2008/01/10/for-years-friends-say-slain-sisters-lived-with-their-father-s-threats-of-violence-and-abuse/

16.

Ellsberg

Heise

Pena

Agurto

Winkvist

(2001). Researching domestic violence against women: Methodological and ethical considerations. Studies in Family Planning, 32(1), 1–16.

17.

Ewing

C. P.

(1997). Fatal families: The dynamics of intrafamilial homicide. SAGE.

18.

Farberov

(2017, April 11). Husband is charged with murder after his wife is found dead in their New Jersey home by their 12-year-old son. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4401556/Boy-discovers-mother-stabbed-death-home.html

19.

Flack

(2006, October 12). Prosecutors plan to seek death penalty against Biyad. WAVE 3. https://www.wave3.com/story/5530763/prosecutors-plan-to-seek-death-penalty-against-biyad/

20.

Freilich

J. D.

Chermak

S. M.

Belli

Gruenewald

Parkin

W. S.

(2014). Introducing the United States extremis crime database (ECDB). Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(2), 372–384.

21.

Freilich

J. D.

Parkin

W. S.

Gruenewald

Chermak

S. M.

(2019). Comparing extremist perpetrators of suicide and non-suicide attacks in the United States. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(5), 943–965.

22.

Garcia

Soria

Hurwitz

E. L.

(2007). Homicides and intimate partner violence: A literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(4), 370–383.

23.

Garcia-Moreno

Jansen

H. A.

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

C. H.

(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368(9543), 1260–1269.

24.

Goldberg

Greene

(2021, July 27). NYC woman offers to take in uncle who murdered her husband in 1996 honor killing: ‘I decided to forgive and forget’. NY Daily News. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-nyc-woman-offers-take-in-uncle-murdered-husband-20210727-wka2po5sqnfrlecyywsipohrqq-story.html

25.

Grosjean

(2014). A history of violence: The culture of honor and homicide in the US South. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(5), 1285–1316.

26.

Haaretz . (2012, November 11). Husband of slain Iraqi-American woman arrested for her murder. Author. https://www.haaretz.com/husband-arrested-for-murder-of-hate-victim-1.5197490

27.

Hayes

B. E.

Freilich

J. D.

Chermak

S. M.

(2016). An exploratory study of honor crimes in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 31(3), 303–314.

28.

Hayes

B. E.

Mills

C. E.

Freilich

J. D.

Chermak

S. M.

(2018). Are honor killings unique? A comparison of honor killings, domestic violence homicides, and hate homicides by far-right extremists. Homicide Studies, 22(1), 70–93.

29.

İnce

Yarali

Özsel

(2009). Customary killings in Turkey and Turkish modernization. Middle Eastern Studies, 45(4), 537–551.

30.

Jaffe

P. G.

Juodis

(2006). Children as victims and witnesses of domestic homicide: Lessons learned from domestic violence death review committees. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 57(3), 13–28.

31.

Jha

(2013, December 4). Man convicted of killing Indian-American ex-girlfriend’s father, sister. Rediff. https://www.rediff.com/news/report/man-convicted-of-killing-ex-girlfriends-indian-american-father-sister/20131204.htm

32.

Kriel

(2015, March 12). DA’s office drops murder charge in Iranian student’s killing. Houston Chronicle. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/DA-s-office-drops-murder-charge-in-Iranian-6131481.php

33.

Kulczycki

Windle

(2011). Honor killings in the Middle East and North Africa: A systematic review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 17(11), 1442–1464.

34.

Kulwicki

A. D.

(2002). The practice of honor crimes: A glimpse of domestic violence in the Arab world. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 23(1), 77–87.

35.

Liem

Reichelmann

(2014). Patterns of multiple family homicide. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 44–58.

36.

Lowe

Khan

Thanzami

Barzy

Karmaliani

(2018). Attitudes toward intimate partner “honor”-based violence in India, Iran, Malaysia and Pakistan. Journal of Aggression, Conflict & Peace Research, 10(4), 283–292.

37.

Lucas

(2002, August 2). Husband charged in triple murder. Stabroek News. http://www.landofsixpeoples.com/news022/ns208024.htm

38.

Lyons

V. H.

Adhia

Moe

C. A.

Kernic

M. A.

Schiller

Bowen

Rivara

F.P.

Rowhani-Rahbar

(2021). Risk factors for child death during an intimate partner homicide: a case-control study. Child Maltreatment, 26(4), 356–362.

39.

Matias

Gonçalves

Soeiro

Matos

(2020). Intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis of risk factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50, 101358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101358

40.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.

41.

Meyer

Post

(2013). Collateral intimate partner homicide. Sage Open, 3(2), 1–11.

42.

Miller

(2017, March 4). Vigilante who killed a man he mistakenly believed got his 13- year-old relative pregnant to ‘protect his family’s honor’ is jailed for 20 years. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4281940/20-year-sentence-mistaken-Washington-state-honor-killing.html

43.

Ostapiuk

(2019, October 28). Woman found in Bloomingdale park was advocate for domestic violence survivors. SI Live. https://www.silive.com/news/2019/10/woman-found-in-bloomingdale-park-was-advocate-for-domestic-violence-survivors.html

44.

Pope

(2012). Honor killings in the twenty-first century. Palgrave Macmillan.

45.

Quinlan

(2021, April 9). Documents: Woman found strangled in her burning car had also been kidnapped by suspect’s family in Iraq. Spokesman Review. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/apr/09/documents-woman-found-strangled-in-her-burning-car/

46.

Reddy

(2014). Domestic violence or cultural tradition? Approaches to ‘honour killing’ as species and subspecies in English legal practice. In Gill

A. K.

Strange

Roberts

(Eds.), ‘Honour’ killing & violence: Theory, policy & practice (pp. 27–45). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137289568_2

47.

Roslyn Heights NY. (2019, August 29). Why he did it: Massacre on Elm Street. Roslyn Heights NY. https://roslynheightsny.org/2019/08/29/what-the-press-didnt-know-about-the-murder-of-mandana-shojaeifard-rhs-09/

48.

Smith

Kenton

(2019, April 14). Revealed: Husband shot and killed his wife and their two children because he thought she was sleeping with his brother. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6921503/Man-shot-wife-kids-thought-sleeping-brother.html

49.

Smith

S. G.

Fowler

K. A.

Niolon

P. H.

(2014). Intimate partner homicide and corollary victims in 16 states: National Violent Death Reporting System, 2003–2009. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 461–466.

50.

Solomonia . (2004, April 27). Honor killings come to the USA. Author. http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/003699.shtml

51.

State of New Jersey v. Hassan. No. A-5443-05T45443-05T4, N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. (2008). http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2008/a5443-05-opn.html

52.

Thrasher

Handfield

(2018). Honor and violence. Human Nature, 29(4), 371–389.

53.

Van Baak

Hayes

B. E.

Freilich

J. D.

Chermak

S. M

. (2018). Honor crimes in the United States and offenders’ neutralization techniques. Deviant Behavior, 39(2), 187–202.

54.

Websdale

(2010). Familicidal hearts: The emotional styles of 211 killers. Oxford University Press.

55.

Wilson

Daly

Daniele

(1995). Familicide: The killing of spouse and children. Aggressive Behavior, 21(4), 275–291.

56.

World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Femicide. Author. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77421/WHO_?sequence=1